MATL - Philippians Reflection

Prompt: Reflect on the major theological themes in Philippians I.

Continuing the theme established throughout our study of Paul, the Letter of Paul to the Philippians presents a theological discourse in discipleship and community and identity formation.  The letter is considered largely warm and positive in tone; despite the time it spends contemplating possible execution of Paul and the existential nature of his existence.  Though Paul debates his own mortality and his desire to join Jesus in salvation, he also continues to offer advice and wisdom to his readers as both an encouragement and entreaty to remain faithful to their path.

Paul’s use of a hymn in the letter is “one of the most poetic passages in all Paul’s writings,” and serves as an insight for the reader into the language and ritual of the early Christians. The imagery and style of the hymn is reminiscent of the Nicene Creed used in contemporary Catholic mass, though the content is different. As with the Nicene Creed, this hymn outlines the major beliefs of the community it serves- in this case, the belief and imagery of Christ as a being possessing equal status with God, who willingly humbled himself and embraced the will of God as an example to all humanity how best to follow God and come to Salvation.  The imagery of complete subservience to God’s will both calls forth the Hebrew Bible teachings of Covenant and obedience (thus illustrating Paul’s own background and heritage) and also sets the stage for the later works of Mark and his interpretation of discipleship.

Paul spends significant time exploring the idea that Jesus’ life should be imitated by his followers (Kugler/Hartin, 450.) Again, readers outside of Paul’s intended audience can appreciate the symmetry of Paul’s words to those of the Gospels of Luke and Matthew, and to some extent even John.  Paul’s intended audience receives this advice without the context of the gospels, of course, but it serves the same purpose.  In outlining the importance of following Jesus’ path as a requisite of salvation, Paul provides a concrete example and expectation for his audience: it is not enough to merely believe or provide devotion, but one must willingly follow God’s interests rather than one’s own. This is, of course, a theme that occurs throughout the entire Bible, beginning with Abraham’s obedience to sacrifice his own son.

Paul wrote the letter from prison, exploring his own mortality and the possible consequences of his mission. He explores the rewards of death in the service of Christ as a parallel to Christ’s own service and obedience to God.  To Paul’s audience, this served as a reminder of the expected and possible outcomes of following Christ’s path, and as a reassurance that all would ultimately be well, even in the faith of death.  To those outside of Christianity, and perhaps even to a modern reader, this passage seems somewhat self-deluded or extremist. It is interesting to consider how Paul must have appeared to his opposition- while his devotion and faithfulness are a credit and inspiration for believers, his passion may also ring of zealotry to a non-believer.

Of course, this also contributes to Paul’s intentional community and identity building.  Serving as such an effluent and effervescent example discipleship would reinforce the tendencies of those who already converted, and perhaps appeal to those looking for a revolutionary sense of community or belonging.  Though the theme of community building is not as prominent in this letter as in Thessalonians, it is clearly a favorite theme of Paul’s.

Overall, I have struggled with Paul. I appreciate his zeal and devotion, but his tone is off-putting. I suppose this relates more to my rather logical and cold approach to religion, rather than the more emotional and transcended experiences that many relate, and is not really a fault of Paul’s style- it just doesn’t speak to me. I appreciate the guidance and reminders within the lecture to consider Paul within his own context and motivation, rather than letting the contemporary setting overly color the writings.

MATL - Thessalonians Reflections

 Prompt: Reflect on the major theological theme within Thessalonians I.

The theology of Paul, as we learned last week, resides largely in communicating with the early Christian communities about how to come into and grow within the existing covenant between God and the Jewish people. That is, Paul wrote not as a revolutionary founder of a new religion, but rather as a prophet or teacher explaining the fulfillment of a traditional teaching and the evolution and fullness of the Jewish faith.  Keeping this in mind, then, contemporary readers of Paul’s letters are challenged to refrain from overly evangelizing Paul’s works while still evaluating and examining the materials for applicability in the contemporary world.

In the First Letter of Paul to the Thessalonians, Paul deals with two major theological issues. The first touches on the status of the Thessalonian believers within the covenant of God, and the second deals with a concept of apocalyptic eschatology (Kugler & Hartin, 430.)  The significance of these theological themes in the world behind the text likely reside in the efforts of Paul to build a community different and distinct from the surrounding gentile communities. When examining the world in front of the text, the themes provide an enduring continuity and relevance to the contemporary Christian community, and also provide some comfort and perspective on the concept of salvation and resurrection to an audience still waiting for the second coming of Christ.

When considering the theology of covenant, Paul uses deliberate and thoughtful language in greeting and identifying his audience.  As noted in the lecture, using words such as “beloved” and “chosen” are specific to the conversation of Covenant, and clearly reflect Paul’s intent to remind the Thessalonian community of their participation as part of God’s people, regardless of their ethnic backgrounds. This significance was significant to the world behind the text, again as noted in the lecture, because it likely explains the circumstances of the Thessalonians and why Paul felt compelled to write a letter in the first place.  By differentiating themselves from their surrounding communities, the Thessalonian community likely experienced social prejudice, pressure, or even punitive actions.  It is interesting to consider these conditions perhaps inspired the Gospel writers- particularly Mark- to narrate the necessity of suffering and service as a path of discipleship.   The importance of including all gentiles into the covenant with God within the world behind the text also presents interesting parallels to the efforts of the Ancient Israelites to form and discern their identity as a distinct and innovative people among the Mesopotamian cultures.  In a contemporary setting, readers take comfort knowing they too can enter into the covenant with God, and that there is an all-encompassing message of salvation envisioned by Paul.

The second major theological theme in this letter is about the concept of resurrection and salvation.  Within the work, Paul’s purpose is straightforward.  The concern for those members of the Thessalonian community who died must have been extremely frightening in a mindset where the second coming was considered imminent. (Horrell, 2075.) Paul offers comfort and assurance that God will acknowledge and save all of his people, even those who die while waiting for Christ.

The text emphasizes the practicality of Paul’s work.  Therefore, it is unreasonable to examine his letter as a metaphorical exploration of the second coming of Christ- indeed, it seems reasonable that Paul expected a living, breathing Christ to return, just as he rose from the dead.  However, just as Paul “was not aware that he was starting a literary movement…that would be authoritative for Christian believers through the centuries,” (Kulger/Hartin, 430) it is possible that Paul’s work speaks to a more metaphorical interpretation than he intended.  Specifically, the apocalyptic eschatology as explained by the text, wherein Paul embraces an idea that “(c)hristians live between these two poles” of the time between the first coming of Jesus and his return (Kulger/Hartin, 431.) Paul teaches his church to live in a way that readies the believers for the return of Christ, which they considered imminent. Now, two thousand years later, contemporary Christians are still waiting for the return of Christ. This might feel discouraging without the comfort of Paul’s words, reminding readers across generations that the time and hour of Christ’s return are unknown and unknowable, but that the continued good works of people to follow Jesus are necessary.  More deeply, contemporary readers may see an unintended metaphor in Paul’s writing.  That Paul believed Christ would physically return is undeniable. However, when one examines Paul’s own words, “For we now live, if you continue to stand firm in the Lord,” (Thessalonians 3:8) and his ongoing encouragement of the people to live like Christ and receive salvation without any physical resurrection of Christ occurring before their death, the power of hindsight may permit a reader to speculate. There is an enduring truth to Paul’s words that do go deeper than his intent. It is, perhaps, part of the mystical quality of the Bible, that the intent of the authors so often transcends time, culture, and language.  There is a theological case here that Paul’s advice and comfort is sound, but that the second coming of Christ occurs within each of us, daily, as we strive to live our lives according to Jesus’ teachings. It is through Jesus we found salvation of ourselves, even in the face of persecution and discouragement. Like the Thessalonians, we toil and sweat deeply on our journey, so that God- like Paul- may rejoice that we remained faithful in the absence of Christ among us, and trusted in his message.

MATL - The Gospel of John - Reflection

Prompt: Discuss the major theological theme in the Gospel of John, in 2-3 pages.

All of the Gospels demonstrate significant theological themes surrounding the identity of Jesus, and the nature of discipleship.  The theological themes within the Gospel of John are conceptually very different from the Synoptic Gospels, and yet present an important thread of continuity through the writings. The two major themes, as outlined by Kugler and Hartin, are related to the divine nature of Jesus, and on discipleship. The concepts are related to one another, and provide a compelling and final chapter to the narrative of the Gospels in their entirety.

 John presents Jesus as a divine and revelatory figure, unique from the more humanistic depictions found in Mark and Matthew, and more eternal than the depiction of Luke.  Rather than seeking to explore Jesus as a son of both Man and God, John depicts a being who is “a true reflection of God…[who] captures the idea of communicating knowledge of God” (Kulger/Hartin, 492.) This depiction of Jesus as an embodiment of God on Earth, and as an eternal figure who existed before, during, and after the time spent on Earth as a man, who is part of God, and from whom the Holy Spirit flows, is an early depiction of the concept of Holy Trinity, which of course becomes a key component to some of the later formalized Christian religions.  This new conceptualization of Jesus is also one way that John illustrates a deeper theological message- that salvation and eternal life comes only through belief in Christ. It is not sufficient, according to this Gospel, for believers merely to imitate Jesus. They must also believe in Jesus’ identity, and subsequently in God, and stand witness to that belief.

This transitions to the second major theological theme of the Gospel- the concept of discipleship.  Discipleship features in all of the gospels as a major theological them, and in John, discipleship is about witness. While this reads very differently from the more ethics based calls of Mark and Luke, or the call to teach in Matthew, when the four Gospels are read as a cohesive document, there is a clear and logical progression. Mark reminds the reader that sacrifice is necessary, as is service, in order to follow Christ.  Matthew calls disciples to teach one another. Luke implores readers to form a meaningful relationship with God as well, introducing the idea that it is not enough merely to do the works or pay lip service to Scriptures. Finally, then, John instructs readers to witness to the truth of Belief, and in so doing, experience each of the lessons and observations offered by the Synoptic writers. Jesus models what it is to Witness,[i] while simultaneously reflecting  the nature of God and presenting himself as the sole path to the God (Kugler/Hartin, 492.)

Contemporary readers are challenged to remember that the intent of each Gospel writer was likely focused on their readers and on their specific message. It was the later editing and compiling that created the multilayered narrative that is so powerful and enduring. So, as noted in the lecture, while contemporary readers should not view John’s depiction of Christian replacements as supersessionism, they should acknowledge that theme may well have been the intent of those who compiled the Bible as it exists today. However, because this is an example of transmission and interpretation, readers must also accept that interpretations may change and even may be flawed or incorrect, held within the lens of one’s own experience and expectation.  In some ways, this makes John the strongest of the Gospels. The work is almost mystic in nature, focusing on messages of love and eternal life, while emphasis on the Jewish traditions are set to the side. They are not demeaned, as noted earlier, but they are no longer the primary focus of the story: John is not concerned with fulfilling the prophecies of Ancient Israel, he is focused on communicating a deeper and more universal message. These ideas are more relatable to the contemporary world than the ideas of Ancient Israel.

Works Cited:

Kugler, Robert A., and P. J. Hartin. An Introduction to the Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2009.

________________________________________

[i][i] The word is capitalized to indicate it is a function and embodiment, similar to that of Reason or Wisdom, but I realize this may not be the correct way to make such an indication.

MATL - Gospel of Luke - Reflection

Prompt: Based on the materials from this week, discuss the most important theological element of the Gospel of Luke, in a 2-3 pages.

When critically evaluating the world of and behind the Gospels, it is easy to spend significant time evaluating the differences between them.  Even within the synoptic texts, which are all based around the same core set of materials and sources, the differing content of the Gospels can lead to conflicting and contradictory interpretations when they are read without care to consider the larger picture. This is sometimes a useful and helpful technique, particularly when considering what the motivations of an author were, but it can also cause a reader to miss a larger message in the theological themes that tie scriptures together.  The topic of discipleship is one example, particularly when comparing the disciples of Luke to Mark or Matthew.

Discipleship is a major theological theme in all of the Gospels, which of course is inherently logical. A major purpose of the New Testament is to convert and guide Christians, so the tasks of those who follow Christ should exist in some form. This is, of course, paralleled to the Hebrew Bible, where the guidelines for the devout and followers of Yaweh are outlined and emphasized, repeatedly. Luke’s attention to discipleship focuses on a universal calling, and on a physical state of sacrifice and existence, rather than a more spiritual one, which he then contrasts with an emphasis on the importance of a relationship with God, rather than merely doing works of service and sacrifice (Kugler/Hartin, 402.)

 In Luke, the concept of discipleship focuses on the universal nature of the calling, which is consistent with the invitation of Mark’s ambiguous ending, and with Matthew’s idea that all disciples are ‘brothers and sisters’ in Christ (Kugler/Hartin, 391.)  However, Luke is the first to really emphasize the nature of Jesus’ fellowship as appropriate for both men and women, not just appropriate for both Gentile and Jew.  Mary, mother of Jesus, is really the first disciple of Christ, because she listens to God and accepts his plan without understanding. She is the first to follow in the path of Jesus, and she is the only woman in the Bible invited to choose whether or not she listens to God’s calling. All other women, even when receiving God’s blessing, are depicted as either receiving the blessing as a result of their husband (particularly related to bearing children) or in answer to their own prayers. Martha and Mary, sisters to Lazarus, are also depicted as actively participating in the ministry and mission of Christ, and they, along with Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Susanna, and Mary mother of James, are intimate and important members of Jesus’ crowd of disciples. Mark infers their importance by making them the faithful watchers when the Apostles have fled, but Luke is the first to give them names and narratives.  Luke also balances the parables to show equality and applicability of Jesus’ lessons, offering parables of both men and women for the reader to evaluate. (Kulger/Hartin, 401.) This is important because it breaks social conventions both within the world of the text, and the world behind the text.  Throughout the Gospels, the writers make a point of depicting the salvation of Jesus as fulfilling the promises made to Israel and of the transitions in authority. Luke reminds the reader that this transition affects the role and status of women, as well.

Discipleship is an important and relevant topic to any contemporary reader interested in living a Christian life.  Certainly, while the original intent of the disciple messages has changed, the long-term intent was to provide a lasting guide and source of authority for the duration of the Christian experience. While the authors of the Gospel in canon today may not have imagined that their work to survive in the current configuration, they clearly intended it for extended use and application.  Understanding the overarching development of discipleship painted by reading all of the Gospels is just as critical for a contemporary Christian as understanding the nuance and specific messaging within each individual Gospel.

When evaluating the Gospel of Luke for application in a contemporary setting, the reader sees an ongoing commitment to the idea established in Mark and elaborated on in Matthew, which is: discipleship requires following Christ before everything else. It is not enough to merely contemplate or passively endorse Christian behaviors- one must actively participate in life as called by Jesus. Luke reminds the reader that such participation must include building a relationship with God. It is not just about doing good work, it is about being open to God, and trusting God’s purpose even when we can’t really understand what that entails. Mark calls disciples to serve and sacrifice, and Matthew instructs disciples to learn and implement the lessons of Jesus as part of the mission. Luke demonstrates the importance of trusting God’s purpose, and of forming a deep and personal relationship and trust in God. His use of women, both to break barriers within the laws and traditions of traditional roles, and as examples of how to entrust God, is as unconventional now as it was when written.  In a world where women still struggle for equal pay, healthcare access, employment opportunities, or rights within marriage and societal access, Luke is a reminder that even those viewed as unequal or less are equally important to God. Those who are least valued can be the best example of how to move forward in the path of Christ.

Works Cited:

Kugler, Robert A., and P. J. Hartin. An Introduction to the Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2009.

MATL - Gospel of Mark- Reflection

Prompt: Based on this week's materials, discuss the most important theological message in the Gospel of Mark, in 2-3 pages.

There are many theological messages within the Gospel of Mark, among them, the idea that Jesus is a different kind of Messiah, and a call to the readers of Mark to take up discipleship for themselves.  Within this, there is a deeper theological thread which is still keenly applicable today. Jesus the Messiah offers salvation to all people- not just the Israelites- and, therefore, everyone is capable of taking up the path of discipleship.  Mark tears down the barriers between those who are ‘in’ and those who are ‘out’ when it comes to the Kingdom of God. Today, this presents both the same hopeful message to those who are currently ‘outside’ but looking for God, and also serves as a reminder to the modern Christian about their own behavior and ministerial obligations.

As noted in the textbook, Jesus presents himself as a different kind of Messiah than the one expected by his followers (Kugler and Hartin, 370.) Jesus is a metaphysical savior who offers eternal life, not a socio-political figure to challenge earthly oppression.  It is not surprising that the contemporaries of Jesus expected a Judge[1] considering the rich cultural and religious tradition up that point. Throughout the history of the Israelites, when they were oppressed by outside political forces, they believed God sent them a deliverer who called for them to return to the true worship of God and, in return for their renewed faithfulness, their oppressors were destroyed.  Viewing the occupation of Rome as an oppression, and given Jesus’ message of repentance and a return to God, it is perhaps expected that his follows initially expected Jesus to deliver them from Roman occupation.[2]  Mark takes great trouble to explain to his readers about this misconception, and instill in his readers the understanding that Jesus’ task is much deeper than mere liberation.

In teaching his disciples about his different concept of Messiah, Jesus instills the reader with an understanding that this Messiah saves everyone who believes, regardless of their origin.  This is demonstrated through the miracle stories, where Jesus heals ‘outsiders’ numerous times: the unclean, such as the leper (1:40-41), the man with the weathered hand (3:3-5), or the hemorrhaging woman (5:25-34) or foreigners, such as Legion (5:1-20) and the Syro-Phoenician woman’s daughter (4:27-30.) Indeed, in the story of the Syro-Phoenician woman, Mark voices the question and answer about who can seek salvation. Jesus, in the metaphorical role of God, asks the woman whether or not he should care first for His chosen people, symbolized by feeding children bread. The woman replies that even dogs (symbolic of the outsiders) eat the crumbs left by children, and so Jesus heals the woman’s daughter and praises her faith. This story is not about Jesus being corrected or even about the woman’s faith being tested, but rather a parable by Mark showing that Jesus’ salvation is for all believers, and his capacity of salvation is limitless- that even the leftover ‘crumbs’ of his ministry are enough.  Jesus also creates the miracles of the loaves and fishes for the Israelites (6:41-44) and for outsiders (8:6-9) alike, showing that both are valued. (Horsley, 1806.)

Mark also depicts a ‘Messiah for all peoples’ in Jesus actions and teachings. Jesus ‘breaks’ the Sabbath both to harvest wheat for his hungry followers (2:23-26) and to heal the sick (3:1-5) demonstrating that the Sabbath designation (a Jewish tradition and custom) is not subject to God’s Kingdom.  Just as Jesus physically healed outsiders, he forgives the sins of many- another task said to be impossible for a human by Jewish tradition. He challenges the Jewish law of divorce as traditionally ascribed to Moses, and reminds people to follow God’s laws rather than the laws of humans (10:2-9.)  Indeed, he even obviously announces his Messiaship is for everyone when he tells a strange man that the path to Salvation is simple: one must not just follow the commandments, he must also give up all he owns to follow Jesus and find eternal life. (10: 19-21.)  Jesus says, “Whoever does this will of God is my brother and sister and mother” (3:35) and that “(i)f any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me” (8:34.) Later, John speaks to Jesus about attempting to stop an outsider from casting out demons, and Jesus delivers a famous sermon, “(w)hoever is not against us is for us.” (Mark 9:41.) In illustrating that the Kingdom of God is above the laws of humans, and that while Jewish faith traditions are important they alone are not the means to salvation, Jesus opens the door for ‘outsiders’ to follow him.

This transitions into the call to discipleship present throughout Marks’ Gospel.  Throughout the Gospel, Mark illustrates the necessary requirements of discipleship: service and suffering in order to follow Jesus. This invitation is not just for a Jewish reader, however.  Mark’s audience was Gentile Christians (Kulger-Hartin, 375) who, throughout the Gospel, were offered opportunities to see themselves as followers of Jesus. Mark also paints the transition of discipleship in a way that invites ‘outsiders’ into the mission.

Jesus begins with no disciples, and so goes among the people and invites people to follow him. (1:16-20) Then, from his numerous followers, he ascends a mountain, and designates twelve to help him. (3:15-19.)[3]   These twelve follow Jesus until he is arrested and crucified. Discipleship then passes to the women, who watch with Jesus while he dies and who serve Jesus in his death. (Kugler and Hartin, 373.) When the women flee the empty tomb in terror, the reader is left with a clear invitation to step into the role of disciple.   There are parallels to the evolution of the Israelite traditions.  God also sought out believers and called people to follow, and from the many followers created twelve tribes of Israel. Jesus begins with the Jewish people in his call of discipleship. Ultimately, the discipleship passes to women, who in the Israelite culture are less important than men in many ways, and particularly in a religious sense. Symbolically, the enduring faithfulness of the women, when the men have fled in fear, is an acknowledgement that others besides the preferred chosen people may follow Jesus. When the women also flee, the reader sees a clear invitation and opportunity: throughout the Gospel, Jesus emphasizes that anyone can take up the cross to follow him. Here, then, is the chance for the Gentile: The Gospel concludes the tomb empty and deserted. Who is left to follow Christ if not the reader, who from the beginning is known as an ‘outsider’?

This theological message- that salvation comes to all who follow Jesus, not just the chosen people of God- applies in contemporary settings.  The world is full of people who are outsiders. The Gospel’s call to outsiders is a reminder to contemporary Christians not to forget that the Word is for everyone- not just those who already understand and believe.  A Christian is called by Jesus to follow him and live as an example to others- in the service of others. Christians have an obligation to minister to everyone, not just those who believe or who are potentially convertible. Charities, then, should not draw distinctions between the ‘insiders’ and ‘outsiders’ nor make conversion a condition of the charity.  Expressions of human dignity, of love, of compassion, and companionship, are due to all peoples- even those that are disconcerting or uncomfortable.  The Gospel reminds Christians that they were once outsiders, too, and Jesus still embraced them.  The Gospel offers hope to those who seek it- inviting everyone to consider what it is to follow Jesus. 

Works Cited:

Horsley, Richard A. “Mark.” Pages 1791-1825 in The New Oxford Annotated Bible: New Revised Standard Version: With the Apocrypha: An Ecumenical Study Bible. Edited by Michael D. Coogan et al. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010.

Kugler, Robert A., and P. J. Hartin. An Introduction to the Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2009.

 [1] Judge here is used in the context of the Hebrew Bible, as in a liberator or source of deliverance.

[2] Horsley explains that the number of baskets leftover identify the content of the crowd: twelve for the Israelites, and seven for the outsiders, 1806.

[3] Horsley writes that this scene is symbolic of a renewed Israel and that the twelve are symbolic of this renewal, 1797.

MATL- He said Love!

Prompt: Today's prompt is to examine the Sermon on the Mount and consider the characterization of Jesus presented in Matthew's Gospel using this example.

Kugler and Hartin write that “(t)he Sermon on the Mount has been described as ‘a design for life in the kingdom’” (Kugler/Hartin, 382.)  The Sermon offers multiple perspectives from Jesus describing ways to enter the Kingdom of God. Jesus is presented as an authority figure (Matt 7:29) and is depicted as a sort of contemporary Moses (Kugler/Hartin, 382.) Even his posture (sitting) on a mountain (symbolic of Mt Sinai) interpreting and providing laws evokes the images of Moses, as does the subsequent organization and content of the Gospel (Cousland, 1752.)  In characterizing Jesus as an authority figure equal or greater to the greatest prophets and teachers of Israel’s traditions, Matthew is giving Jesus a sense of legitimacy for skeptical readers looking to reconcile their belief in Jewish traditions with Jesus. In some ways, Matthew is saying: Of course you can accept Jesus as the Messiah- who else could have such authority over God’s scriptures?

For a reader who already accepts Jesus as the Messiah, and is seeking guidance to follow Jesus, the characterization is a little different.  Jesus is still an authoritative teaching figure, but he also exists as a figure who can adapt his message to any audience. Ultimately, the Sermon on the Mount teaches the reader one thing: Love, expressed in Faith in God, is the path to salvation.  Jesus offers this lesson in many different frameworks: as the beatitudes, as metaphors (salt and light), as admonishments not to place trust in worldly things, in a call to live beyond the mere letter of the law. Each of these speaks to a different learning style and a different audience. Even a reader who does not directly relate to at least one of these examples (as hard to imagine as that might be) still sees in Jesus a teacher who calls to everyone.

Contemporary readers take clues on how to read and interpret the Gospel from these characterizations. As noted in the gospel introduction and the textbook, the criticisms against the Pharisees and Priests was interpreted by some groups as a tacit endorsement for anti-Semitic activities – the horrific repercussions of which are still felt today (Cousland, 1747 and Kugler/Hartin, 389.)  This resulted from readers failing to appropriately contextualize the characterizations and messages of the text as they were intended.  It would be tempting for a non-believer or critic to argue that since all of the social conditions surrounding the development of the Gospel of Matthew have passed, the Gospel is no longer relevant to today’s theological interpretation. This is also misguided, as Matthew carefully and deliberately crafted the picture of Jesus the Teacher to transcend both cultural (Roman, Jewish, Syrian, etc.) and religious differences (in his attempts to reconcile the Jewish debate about accepting Jesus as the Messiah.)  Although the tensions between the emerging Rabbinic Jewish and early Christian faiths has passed, people are still seeking to better understand discipleship. Until people cease to seek answers to this question, the Gospel remains relevant in at least one perspective.

MATL: Social Justice

Prompt: What do you see as the key themes in the four prophetic books you read this week? How might these themes be applied to your contemporary setting? Who is your audience--Youth? College Students? Adults? Senior citizens? Veterans?

The overarching theme I see in these four works is a continuation of the message we see in Kings 1 and 2 and in the writings: a condemnation of power structures outside of God.  From these prophets, the message extrapolates into criticisms of, among other things, social justice and abuse of power and closely links these failures to insincere worship of God.  Together, these two concepts further support the earlier messaging that humans who follow their own hearts and ideas go astray, and we should instead endeavor to trust in God.

There is evidence for these themes in each of the books, as neatly summarized in the textbook.  Isaiah supports the claim by arguing it was trust in God’s promises to Zion and to the Davidic line that enabled Judah’s success.[1]  Hoseah condemns Israel’s foreign policy tendencies (the alliance with other political, human leaders rather than trusting in God) as a constant source of their struggle.[2]  Micah focuses this criticism even more strongly, noting that it is the cities and urban areas which are the most at fault, whereas the more rural (tribal) areas are less condemnable.[3]  Since the evolution of the great cities, and specifically Jerusalem, is a direct consequence of the kingship evolution for the Israelites, Micah’s criticism of urban corruption is also a criticism of Kingship and the governmental trappings associated therein. Amos, of course, remains one of the most famous critics of social injustice.

There is also a clear link between true worship and human action- these prophets argue it is not enough to observe the forms of religion, but rather that worshippers must actually believe in their actions, and live the religious tenants in their lives, not just in ceremony.[4]  When summarizing Hoseah, the text succinctly and eloquently outlines the deep connection between intent and execution of worship and true piety: "Rather, he [Hoseah] gives voice to the view that ritual action which connects the human to God does have its place - its essential place- in the divine-human equation, but such action becomes empty if the grounding in the divine does not also produce in the human community a desire to make it the best it can be, the most just it can be."[5] This ties back to the condemnation of corruption of authority and agitation for social justice. Leaders cannot just ascribe their legitimacy from God, they must also implement God’s will and laws in their actions. They must enforce those actions as a matter of policy, and they must trust God- not foreign nations- when determining how best to act.

The nature of emergency management is that everyone is your audience. In my current role, I’m fortunate to say that my primary audience is the Gonzaga community, which is composed primarily of college students supported by adults who value higher education and Jesuit values- which, diverse as it is, is a far more specific category than those faced by my colleagues in government.  However, as is also the nature of private education in this country, the student element of my youth are largely from the socially privileged sections of the world.[6] The support of those students in staff and faculty demonstrates a wider variety of social and economic diversity, but there are still only a tiny fraction of employees who live along the poverty line.  In many ways we are the audience of the prophets- we have some degree of political power and social or economic advantages. Just as our leaders must act justly, so too must we endeavor to change our own behaviors.  We too should hear the words of warning and admonishment from the prophets, who call us to do more than attend church or temple on Sundays- who charge us to trust in God and live our lives honestly.

At Gonzaga, we are tasked with educating our students for their entire personhood- to care for their emotional, physical, and intellectual needs. We are charged in our mission to instill a sense of social justice and responsibility in our students, to send them forth into the world not just to do good works, but to model what it is to believe in the work they are doing.  We teach them about social justice because we endeavor to live it with them, not just preach it to them. We send forth our graduates with the charge, ite inflammate omnia.  This is not a mere cheer or slogan: it is an obligation. We could better empower our students if we remind ourselves that we are also called to set the world on fire…that we should be doing so every day.

---

[1] Kugler, Robert A., and P. J. Hartin. An Introduction to the Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: EM. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2009, 238.

[2] Ibid., 238.

[3] Ibid., 296.

[4] Ibid., 238, 276. Also see Isaiah 1:12-17.

[5] Ibid., 295-296. Emphasis added.

[6] I realize that Gonzaga works diligently to increase the diversity, including socio-economic status, of the students enrolled in the program, and there is no inherent criticism against Gonzaga in my thoughts.  However, there is no denying that access to higher education (and, likely, education at all!) is limited to largely economically stable individuals. Our current efforts to admit and support students from lower-middle class families is admirable, but it is still not the same as actively enrolling students from truly destitute and poverty-stricken areas. This commentary, however, extends far beyond the assignment, although it supports the overarching theme of social justice.

David's Hope

Prompt: Reflect on and discuss the characterization of David, Bathsheba, Nathan, Joab, and Absalom you find in 2 Samuel 9-20. What adjectives come to mind in describing them? Are any “sympathetic” characters? What, if any, “timeless” qualities do you find in these stories? 

In this assignment, we visit David only as an adult and King- there is no room for David the boy wonder or David the underdog. Instead, we see David painted as the ideal King of the Israelites- a people for whom no king but God should have been necessary, but who demanded one all the same.[1] David’s recurring theme is one of justice and loyalty marred by personal desire. David seeks out the son of Jonathan to show loyalty to his best friend, despite the fact this son was lame and otherwise considered useless.[2] David expresses a desire to treat the Ammonites fairly because he had so been treated.[3]  He shows himself capable of determining right from wrong, but his own loyalty to himself and his desires interferes, as shown in his conversation with Nathan regarding Uriah and Bathsheba[4] and again later regarding the quarrel between Amnon and Absalom.[5]  The work clearly regards David as a great and fearsome leader- the enemies of Israel only ever are 'obnoxious', rather[6] than any real threat.  He loves his sons, to a fault. He begs for the life of his infant son, he sends his daughter to care for Amnon when he is ill, and though he is angry when Amnon rapes Tamar, David does not punish him. He weeps for both Amnon[7] and Absalom[8], despite the literary fact that both needed very much to die. He seems indifferent to his daughters, but that is not unusual within the Scriptures in general.  David demonstrates an enormous capacity to forgive and ignore wrongs done to him, as well- he overlooks Amnon’s rape of Tamar, brings Absalom back to the city after Amnon’s murder, honors the servant Ziba after Mephibosheth’s supposed betrayal (and subsequently forgives both Mephibosheth and Ziba) and rebukes his troops when they are all stoned by Shimei.

In many ways, David is an allegory for the relationship between Yaweh and his people. David loves his children, no matter what. He rewards faithfulness. He forgives those who ask for it.  He defends the Israelites and his family from all who threaten them. When read from the viewpoint of the New Testament, David is the early, flawed prototype for Jesus.[9] David demonstrates not only how Yaweh loves the Israelites with infinite patience and compassion, but also the flaws of attempting to humanize or replace Yaweh’s place in their lives. David cannot replace Yaweh because David is also a human, is also flawed- but he can help people understand how the relationship between humans and Yaweh should be, and why humans should not wish to place a King between themselves and Yaweh.

Like many other Hebrew Scripture wives, Bathsheba is a marginalized and tragic figure. She has an affair with David- was it forced? No one knows, but the fact that she was ritually cleansing herself after menstruation is a neat bit of symbolism as to the severity of David’s transgression. She clearly has compassion, for she mourns both Uriah and the dead son, but once Solomon is born, she vanishes from the narrative. As with other treatments of women in the Hebrew Scriptures, Bathsheba’s role is to provide David with an heir- and once that function is accomplished she no longer matters to the narrative.   Nathan, too, is marginalized in this later part of David’s life. He serves only as the literary device to explain all of the horrible things that will befall David because of his transgression with Bathsheba and subsequent murder of Uriah.  These two characters exist as plot progression narratives, not as robust or interesting characters on their own.

Joab serves the literary function of David’s conscience and temperament. He is also clearly a skilled warrior, and much trusted by David, who sends Joab out at the head of the entire Israelite army numerous times.  Joab is extremely loyal to David, never seeking to overstep his relationship with David (such as when he calls David to finish the fight against Rabbah and so assume the glory in Chapter 12) or complaining about his complicity in arranging Uriah’s death, despite any personal objections or judgements. Joab also assists David even when David cannot see what is best, such as when he works to bring back Absalom when David’s grief is so great, and later, when Joab kills Absalom despite David’s plea. Joab knows Absalom must die to keep David safe- and that David cannot bring himself to harm his son.  Joab also criticizes David and reminds David of his deeper responsibility and duty to his people- that David cannot wallow and linger in his own grief and sorrow, but must lead his people, as he has been charged.[10]  It is difficult to understand Joab’s role when one views David as an allegory for Yaweh, but from a literary standpoint, Joab is the necessary muscle that allows the hero to remain untarnished and vulnerable. We would not like David much if he murdered Absalom- no matter how much we come to dislike Absalom by the end of the tale.  We admire Joab for his devotion, we are wary of his ruthlessness, and we are thankful Joab is on David’s side.

Absalom is such an interesting character. He beings so sympathetically- he is righteously outraged by the treatment of his sister, the abuse of his elder brother, and the seeming indifference of his father. The rest of the story, though, causes one to wonder: is this an act? It seems out of place for the Scriptures to place such a huge attachment of a male on a sister or daughter.  Indeed, avenging the stolen virtue of women is more of an excuse for other grievances of Israelite men, rather than justice for a woman abused. Assuredly, Simon and Levi slaughtered those at Sechem on pretense for Dinah’s rape- but since the rape had already been atoned and the marriage legalized, it was really about pride and wealth. Absalom is no different. He uses Tamar as his excuse to plot against Amnon, who stands between him and the throne.  He plots shamelessly against David while in exile and when brought back.  He is depicted as vain and spoiled- his countenance is beautiful, with long thick hair[11] and he feels entitled to treatment like a king. Burning Joab’s fields because Joab, who serves David- not Abaslom- is an ultimate mark of petty and cruel self-centeredness. It marks Absalom’s true nature, which is further revealed as Absalom plots against his father through the rest of the story. Like those who are unfaithful to Yaweh, Absalom initially seems reasonable and appealing to the Israelites, but ultimately he is utterly and completely destroyed.  Just as Yaweh forgives those who turn from him, David forgives Absalom- but just as Absalom died for his transgressions, so too are the unfaithful to Yaweh punished.

The story of David is one of my favorites, and one with which I am very familiar through another literary venue.  The novel, God Knows by Joseph Heller, is one of my favorite works, and the coloration of the characters that Heller paints is difficult for me to discard when I turn to scripture.  The timelessness of the story itself is evident in many literary works. King Lear, with his undying love of spiteful daughters, comes to mind- or any story where a father mourns for the unruly behavior of his children. In some ways, I believe the earlier stories of David- which are much more about a shining hero, endure with a mythic sense of grandiosity. Older David, though, endures in the secret hopes of every parent, who would forgive anything of their children, and in the secret fear we all have about God: why would he punish an innocent for our mistakes? What hope would we not hold that maybe God will yield and spare one we love so much.  As David says, there is always hope.

---

[1] 1 Samuel 8

[2] 2 Samuel 9

[3] 2 Samuel 10

[4] 2 Samuel 12

[5] 2 Samuel 14: 1-21

[6] 2 Samuel 10: 6

[7] 2 Samuel 13:37-39

[8] 2 Samuel 19: 1-4

[9] This is not the place for such a discussion, but I wonder if the depictions of Jesus by the Gospel writers deliberately left out depictions of family attachments as they sought to draw a comparison to David and Jesus, all the better emphasize the perfect Love of God (and Christ and the Holy Spirit.)  This idea comes to me from the suggestion in the Bradly Embry article, when he points out that major figures of the Scriptures are often contrasted against one another to better draw out the lessons from one or the other.

[10] 2 Samuel 19:5-7

[11] It is ironic that the same thick hair he prides himself on becomes his doom, as it ensnares him in the brambles. This is also interesting symbolism, since long and beautiful hair appears on those who are devout and sworn to God. We know Absalmon is not, because he cuts his hair twice a year, but the parallels to Sampson and to Absalom, weakened and ultimately killed because of their hair, is unmistakable.

MATL- God the Warrior

Prompt: The direct intervention of God in the lives of humanity, whether it be in the life of a single individual or on behalf of the Chosen People, is a long-standing point of theological discussion. Certainly, those who believe in God likely also believe that God works in the lives of individuals and on behalf of the Chosen, whereas those who do not believe in God likely struggle with this. As in all things, there are also those who live in the greylands, which is often where I find myself.  Accepting the direct intervention of God in the course of human events such as depicted in the stories of Joshua and Judges is difficult for me to rationalize and accept.  The stories sound like the same kind of religious accounts I refer to as myths or stories in other cultures- the Odyssey comes most readily to mind.  Then, too, one is left to ask: Was God in support of the Crusades? Does God support modern Israel against its many foes? Does God actually possess such human characteristics as spite and petulance, or are these anthropomorphic literary efforts undertaken to help an entire culture better understand their situation?

If we accept that God directly influences and interacts with humans, at any level, we are undertaking theology. We seek to discover the nature of these relationships and interactions, working from a foundational thesis that God exists and cares. In this regard, God may be quite different from other gods, who are depicted as ignoring their creations, or using humans for their own (often selfish and destructive) behaviors.  Since we are explicitly examining the Hebrew scriptures, the depiction of Yaweh (which, I think, is different than the depiction of God one receives when reading both the Hebrew bible and New Testament) as the sort of God who directly interferes in the course of history is both necessary and logical. There is always an element of "PR" to any religion- it must both persuade and hold the audience. The writers deliberately crafted stories about Yaweh as both a unilateral ally in war (assuming the faithful behavior of the Israelites…!) and a God that is deeply, profoundly interested in the lives of human creation - that loves creation. As a Hebrew living in exile, of course I can accept both depictions of God, because that God sounds much better than all the other gods out there! This God loves us, this God protects us, and this God asks only that we keep faithful in return.

As a modern reader, I do see the appeal of a God that is both righteous and caring. I prefer not to accept the idea that we  embrace one depiction of God and disregard the others, because I think that limits our understanding and the breadth of knowledge from which we can build our own theologies…but then, I do not usually take a literalist reading of any religious work. Do I believe God should be used in justification for war, genocide, slaughter…? Of course not. In this regard, I believe humans like to blame God for their own actions.  What starts as a creation legend becomes justification for bad behavior

Genuine engagement

The Disney Institute Blog (DI) is one of my favorite blogs to follow.  I was fortunate enough to attend one of their locally hosted workshops earlier this year and I hope someday to attend one of their larger leadership seminars in Orlando.

Today I read a piece that talks about genuine care of leaders for their employees as a critical component of a culture of care in the workplace.  The DI folks spend a lot of time emphasizing consistency as the key word within the concept. I agree with their thoughts, and I like the direction they steer the culture development, but I think this application is for people who are already well developed in their leadership style, and in cultures that already value care and are simply learning to better integrate care into their organization.

What about leaders who don’t have robust leadership toolkits, or organizations where the concept of a care culture is new or even alien? I’ve worked for some of the most well-known employers in the country, all of whom ranked in the Forbes Top 100 workplaces at the time I was employed there, and I honestly think less than half of them really embraced and integrated cultures of care at the time.    More recently, I spent time at an organization that prides itself on the integrity of its care culture and the commitment to employees and I’m currently employed at an organization whose very mission statement includes the concept of cura personalis. What I see over my career are a lot of leaders who know (or have been told) they need to show care for their employee, but they don’t really understand what it means.

I would argue, then, that while ‘consistent’ is a great word to include when offering continued development and refinement of leadership styles related to cultures of care, it is important to begin the leadership development process with the word ‘genuine.’  One problem with offering genuine care is that everyone interprets a genuine gesture differently, and every employee will have a different value structure or metric to evaluate the kind of care demonstrated for them by their employer. Employers can help develop employees to understand the kind of care culture they offer, and can thoughtfully recruit employees who fit their model, but ultimately the manager or leader must also spend time tailoring their output of effort into understanding what genuine care looks like for the individual.

Here’s a personal example. A co-worker recently lost a spouse following an unexpected and brief illness. This co-worker remained at work through most of the experience and returned to work only a few days after the funeral. One of our leaders, looking at their own concept of genuineness, decided to ‘chat’ with the employee about taking more time off while the spouse was ill “to enjoy the time left,” and staying home longer following the funeral. This was offered with the best of intentions- the leader truly believed they were helping the employee- but in actuality, the leader’s actions intruded on the employee’s needs. Instead of being a genuine care source, it became a source of insensitive leadership projecting their own values on another, causing the employee to feel shamed or judged in their work environment.

Let’s look at a less extreme example. A previous employer valued team building events highly as a source of morale, relationship building, and a way to impart culture to employees.  Sounds great, right? But the employer lacked the commitment to engage on meaningful and individual levels. Instead, team leaders were instructed to schedule mandatory ‘fun’ days for employees, given a set budget, and told to implement a one-size-fits-all solution. The problem? Not everyone can take a day off to have ‘fun’ and not all activities are one-size-fits-all.  Rock climbing, paint ball games, even pottery painting might all be acceptable activities- but without a source of genuine relationship between the leader and recipients, it feels forced and superficial. Employees often voiced feedback along the lines of, “Just give me the twenty bucks you spent or let me go home an hour early.”  Employees who feel their time is wasted by a leader demonstrating disingenuous care are not going to find the interactions satisfying, and some may even find them discouraging or demeaning. This is not the path to an engaged workforce. A well intentioned effort that lacks genuineness will still fail.  

This is a tricky challenge for leaders- they work hard just like everyone else, and asking them to take time to actively engage in meaningful ways with each employee on a personal and individual level can become an enormous undertaking. It is expensive from a labor standpoint, taking up time of the leader. It is emotionally expensive too, because the leader must engage on a personal level with their team, rather than keeping a measure of distance. However, if an organization truly believes that employees are assets rather than resources, the investment is worthwhile.  Organizations should teach their leaders how to be genuine- how to ask about value statements of their employees, and to solicit active feedback about what care looks like. Empowering the leadership to implement solutions appropriate for their team, and the individuals who make up the team, is crucial. The first step to integrating culture into the everyday lives of employees is to give them something to believe in…and that means, making it genuine.

MATL - Genesis and Sex as a Gender Role

Prompt: What do you see as the key theological themes in Genesis 1-11?  How might these themes be applied to your contemporary setting?  How does Gen 1-11 continue to affect the way Americans view gender and race? Give specific examples (you can use internet sites as long as you give citations). How would you evaluate this usage?

 There are a number of themes presented in Genesis 1-11, many of which set the stage for the rest of the Bible. In particular, Genesis sets the stage for the supremacy of God and God’s relationship between God and humans, including God’s faithfulness to his creation and how God is different from other gods contemporary to the world within and behind the Bible. These themes form a distinguishing element for the Ancient Israelites and the early codification of Judaism, separating them from other early societies and cultures.  On a narrower scope, Genesis 1-11 also sets the conversation for the “divine command to the first couple…to produce offspring and possess the land (1:28)”[1] which in turn frames the entire Torah as it follows the journey of the Ancient Israelites on their quest to find their homeland.  This conversation about multiplication and fruitfulness can also speak to one of many ways that Genesis weighs into conversations about gender roles in contemporary cultures.

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) writes that there are two major creation stories in Genesis- the one contained in chapter 1, and the one contained in the entirety of chapters 2 through 11.  These two creation stories provide very different views of the origins of the genders, and the role of sex.  The interpretation of these two texts may form the foundation for defining the roles of men and women in society, both contemporary and ancient.
 

The classic tension between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 through 4 discusses to the role of women in relation to men. In Genesis 1, of course, God created man and woman together (GEN 1:26-29) and commanded them to go forth and have children.  In Genesis 2, God creates man first (GEN 2:7) and, after giving man a task, decides man should have help with his labors. (GEN: 2:15, 18) This spurs the creation of land animals and birds, only finally culminating in woman after a period of trial and error.  The author of the story cites this as the source of marriage (GEN 2:24) although does not attribute this to God, and also indicates this partnership was without shame. (GEN 2: 25)  There is no mention of sex and it seems that childbirth is afflicted on humans as punishment during the Fall (GEN 3:16) and, in fact, only explicitly occurs starting in chapter 4.  Humans are only encouraged to flourish and reproduce in the aftermath of the flood. (GEN 9:1, 7)

In the first story, men and women are created equally and given the same charge: their purpose is to fill the earth with children, thus spreading the image of God to all corners of the Earth, and as a race are charged with caring for God's creation. Sex is a natural and necessary act between the man and woman because it is an act of procreation. The term is important: in the image of God, man and woman together emulate God: through their actions, they bring forth new life. However, they are not like God in that they cannot create from nothing (as they must have one another) and they must create with action, whereas God calls creation into being with God's Word. This concept is empowering for both men and women. As humans, we are intrinsically linked to the greater purpose of this world, and we are charged with the important tasks of ensuring the continued care of God's creation.   There is a lesson here, too, that the purpose of sex is to create, rather than for pleasure, profit, exploitation, or possession. If sex is an act emulating the Divine, it is reasonable to infer that God expects people to care for sex within the relationship of the man and woman as ordered.  This, then, may lead to contemporary discussions over fornication and homosexuality- issues discussed in greater detail in later sections of the Bible.  

In the second story, genders are created separately.  They have similar tasks, for man to care for God's garden and woman to help man in his labors, and man names woman as he named all other creatures created as partner candidates.  After the Fall, God decrees that woman shall be ruled by her husband as punishment for her sin. There are interpretations of this text that say women must be submissive to men- whether because man was created first or because woman's submission to man is punishment for temptation. 

However, there is another interpretation, again linked to the concept of sex. There is no explicit mention of sex in this creation story until chapter 4, nor is there a charge from God to the man and woman to create children, as there is in chapter 1. Indeed, children are not mentioned until chapter 3 when God first mentions the offspring of woman (GEN 3:15) and man names the woman Eve as the mother. (GEN 3:20) When man was giving out names, he named his partner woman first- she only gained a name related to fertility and offspring after the Fall.  This is important because God's punishment to woman is that she will experience pain in childbirth, and yet despite this shall still desire children. This desire is what places her under the husband's dominion.  This control is further defined within the parameter of marriage established by the author earlier in chapter 2 (sexual desire for a husband, not just for a male sexual partner.)  As with the first story, this sets up discussions surrounding homosexuality, fidelity, and fornication, but nowhere does this text actually say that men and women are unequal.

Both Genesis stories place sex squarely in the realm of procreation. Although Genesis 1 does not exhibit the same sense of shamefulness related to nakedness seen in the second creation story, both stories clearly expend energy and effort on linking sex to children. This is a recurring theme throughout the rest of the Bible as well- the use of sex for purposes other than to make children is considered sinful. Further, as the Bible begins to evolve the sanctity and importance of legitimate children, the concept of fornication as a sin rises and the Bible goes to great lengths to provide care for legitimate children who are left fatherless.

If the reader evaluates the role of sex in the relationship between men and women, one possible contemporary gender issue revolves around the conversation of contraception. A quick search on any internet search engine reveals that contraception and gender equality are related topics.  Generally, the argument revolves around whether or not access to affordable, safe, and reliable contraceptive for women (which is almost always aimed at preventing pregnancy, rather than preventing STI transmission) helps resolve gender inequality issues specifically related to the burden of childbearing. Simply, if women can control whether or not they conceive following sexual intercourse, they are more empowered to control their own lives and self-advocate. There are extrapolations that this may free women for sexual diversity (or promiscuity, depending on your viewpoint) and may make sex more accessible outside of a marriage, since the burden of single motherhood is diminished. If one places this contemporary conversation in the context of Genesis 1-11, one might argue that contraception removes woman from the dominion of man caused by her desire to have children, and thus frees her to be an equal partner again. This, of course, could also be interpreted as a sin against God as it sets aside the punishments given for sin, or because it removes procreation from the sacred intent of sex.

Contraception is certainly a relevant issue in the contemporary world. In the United States, there are concerns related to the impact of overpopulation on the environment, economic concerns, and a desire for greater equality between men and women specifically related to breaking gender roles affiliated with children and parenthood. Viewpoints advocating to maintain traditional gender roles and family structures (in the US defined as a married man and woman, wherein the woman is primarily tasted with homemaking and the husband with economic provisioning) may cite Genesis as a Biblical authority prohibiting the use of contraceptives. This prohibition is justified by the purpose of sex as a procreation tool for use between a man and a woman who are married.  Critics may cite Genesis as an example of Biblical misogyny, aimed at minimizing the potential contributions and role of women through selective reading that ignores the equality of men and woman outlined in Genesis 1, or even dismiss the writings as the deliberate constructs of a patriarchal society determined to eliminate older ‘mother goddess’ religious tendencies as a form of control and domination.

---

[1] USCCB. "Genesis - Introduction." The Bible: Genesis. August 14, 2015. Accessed September 12, 2016. http://www.usccb.org/bible/genesis/0.